Re: Dynamic content policy update

Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Well, RFC2616 section 13.9;
>> We note one exception to this rule: since some applications have
>> traditionally used GETs and HEADs with query URLs (those containing a
>> "?" in the rel_path part) to perform operations with significant side
>> effects, caches MUST NOT treat responses to such URIs as fresh unless
>> the server provides an explicit expiration time. This specifically
>> means that responses from HTTP/1.0 servers for such URIs SHOULD NOT be
>> taken from a cache.
>
> ... so technically you'd be non-conformant regarding the MUST NOT
> (unless there's code to back this up).

Read that again :-)

At present default policy these URI are NEVER cached.

The altered policy would enable squid to work with the noted exception:
"unless the server provides an explicit expiration time". The zeros in
the pattern prevent freshness, yes?

It only breaks the SHOULD NOT about data from 1.0 servers.

The MUST would be kept _exactly_ to the _full_ wording without
administrator intervention.

Amos

>
>
>
> On 29/01/2008, at 12:53 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>
>> Any objections to Squid2-HEAD and Squid 3-HEAD getting the caching
>> policy adjustment for dynamic pages Adrian proposed before xmas?
>>
>> Namely Dropping the
>> acl QUERY cgi-bin \?
>> cache deny QUERY
>>
>> Replacing it with:
>> refresh_pattern (cgi-bin|\?) 0 0% 0
>>
>>
>> No terrible side-effects here so far after a month of use. Just the
>> bugzilla Expires bug coming to view and being fixed.
>>
>> Amos
>> --
>> Please use Squid 2.6STABLE17+ or 3.0STABLE1+
>> There are serious security advisories out on all earlier releases.
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham mnot@yahoo-inc.com
>
>

-- 
Please use Squid 2.6STABLE17+ or 3.0STABLE1+
There are serious security advisories out on all earlier releases.